S SWAMIDASS Vs. ROBERT BRUCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is against the order dated 23-12-1989 in I.A. 652 of 1989 (in the Transfer Petition T.CP. No. 170 of 1989) on the file of the District Court, Nagarcoil, refusing to give extension of interim injunction earlier granted in I.A.I 121 of 1989 in O.S. 676 of 1989 on the file of the Additional District Munsif court, Kizhithurai, till the disposal of the said I.A. 1121 of 1989.

(2.) THE said I.A. 652 of 1989 has been filed under S. 151 C.P.C. O.S. 676 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner against six persons, including the first defendant-Bishop and the second defendant C.S.I. Church, Mangarai, represented by the third defendant-Pastor, for permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from dissolving the ad hoc committee of Mangarai C.S.I. Church appointed on 11.2.1988 until the election to the said Church takes place. In the said suit, in I.A. 1034 of 1989 similar temporary injunction was granted on 24.10.1989 and is still in force. However, it appears on 21.10.1989 itself the Church Board had appointed a new ad hoc committee consisting of the present respondents for holding election to the said Mangarai Church. This is seen from the letter dated 2.11.1989 of the Church Board to one of the respondents herein.

(3.) FURTHER, if at all only under O 39 Rr. 1 or 2, C.P.C it can be said that injunction cannot be granted against a person, who is not a party to the suit. But, even there, I find the following passage in the Commentary under O. 39 R. 1 of Mullah's C.P.C. 13th Edn, Volume II page 1515:? ?No injunction can be granted under this Rule against a person who is not a party to the suit. But this Rule is subject to certain exceptions, e.g. injunction can be given against a purchaser under the decree, against a tenant who had taken a lease from the receiver appointed by the Court.? Any way the respondents should have waited tor the passing of the final decree in I.A. 1121 of 1989 on 30.11.1989, and thereafter if necessary could have filed the abovesaid transfer petition. If they had done so, all these subsequent complications could have been avoided. In this connection, I even wanted to see a copy of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition to find out whether in the said affidavit, the respondents have disclosed the orders passed in the said I.A. 1121 of 1989, and the stage at which it stood then. But none of the counsel before me could provide the said copy. At any rate, the filing of I.A. 652 of 1989 by the petitioner herein became necessary only because of the abovesaid transfer petition and the grant of stay of further proceedings in the suit by the District Court on 29.11.1989, while the trial court had granted injunction upto 30.11.1989 and had posted the relevant I.A. for passing final orders relating to the injunction granted, to 30.11.1989. In such a situation, the District Court should have necessarily considered I.A. 652 of 1989, for extension of the said injunction, on merits and ought not to have dismissed it on the abovesaid technical ground, which cannot be sustained in law.